Senator Brown: F-bombs away!

pre-existing thread (0.00 / 0)

David, you maywish to acknowledge or link to this pre-existing diary on the subject. :)

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 12:28:11 PM CST

Done! Thanks. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: David @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 12:32:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

From Brighton Guy, in Response to David (5.00 / 1)

If I were Sen. Brown, I would NOT have used the explatives, but I WOULD have said, "Johnny Jones called my daughter, who has nothing to do with politics, a vile name.  Freida Kahlo called me a worse one.  And Sam Spade used not only bad language, but accused me of racist acts.  They are not representative of your student body, and they should be ashamed, as well as the teacher that tolerated such language and character assassination on his web page, sending a signal that such discussion and unfounded accusation are acceptable in a civilized society.  The teacher made the worst blunder of all."

We could do with a little more public shaming when the occasion warrants; and fewer lawsuits and private fixes so nobody need ever know, and bad behavior can continue unchecked.

I thought it interesting that - according to Howie Carr, who has his faults, but is usualy factual - that the emails alerting the media to the story came from the same email addresses which posted the original obscene statements (if it's obscene for Sen. Brown to read them verbatim, then it's obscene to post them).  Also - the primary focus of the anger of the teachers centered around the naming of names - which were posted on the web site!  And it WAS students at the school who had made the posts on the teacher's web page.

Also - he went there to talk about hate speech.  The reading of the emails was two minutes out of a 45 minute discussion.  What he was trying to demonstrate was that hate speech was hateful, no mater what point of view it was in service of.  It sounds like it was in context - not Sen. Brown swirling in, delivering a jeremiad, and stalking off leaving terrified schoolchildren behind him.

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 13:00:39 PM CST

Peter, (5.67 / 3)

you've got to be kidding.  I mean, I know you GOoPers need Brown to not self-destruct, but come on.  Using the f-word in front of sophomores -- angrily?  If a Dem had done this, you'd be going ballistic.  I don't care if he's just reading someone else's words.  I don't care if it was 2 minutes out of a 45 minute speech.  I just don't care about any of that.  It was wildly inappropriate, and Brown is being justly pilloried for doing it.  The sooner he makes an abject apology without hemming and hawing and making weak excuses, the better for him (and your party).

---

by: David @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 13:21:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The issues are "Boundaries" and "impulse control" in Senator Brown (6.00 / 2)

RIGHT THING TO DO:  Object to hate speech against daughter.  Nail the audience with a steely look and say, 'Look, I know who your are.  Your peers know who you are.  This was a cowardly attack and you should be ashamed" and then go on from there.

WRONG THING TO DO:  Giving a second life to the spewing of excrement by the young is not a show of maturity, or finely-tuned skills as an oralist.

Anger can be a potent weapon, but only if controlled as well as a fine duelist controls a rapier.

My .02

Deborah Sirotkin Butler
AmberPaw dot @aol.com

"Failure to plan is planning to fail."
Proverb

---

by: AmberPaw @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 17:03:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Amber - that's pretty much what I said I would have done. (0.00 / 0)

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 18:24:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Great Minds Think Alike (5.00 / 1)

Well then, Madame Porcupine, perhaps this is yet more evidence that great minds think alike.

Deborah Sirotkin Butler
AmberPaw dot @aol.com

"Failure to plan is planning to fail."
Proverb

---

by: AmberPaw @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 20:41:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

For Goodness sake (4.00 / 1)

Although usuing the "F" word is inappropriate in any sense, Brown was speaking to a crowd of sophmores and quoting text that kids this age were writing. Unfortunately, by the time kids reach the age of a sophmore, they are using the "F" word in every other sentence. I bet he's one of a handful of politicians who was actually able to get these students' attention.

---

by: Benoitsmidget @ Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 12:14:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sen. Brown (5.00 / 1)

PP, the fact is that Sen. Brown called out names and used profanity in front of a school-aged audience, period.

Apparently, the people who wrote the original comments are children and will hopefully act like adults at some point -- though they clearly did not do so here with the angry and obscene comments. However, Sen. Brown is an adult and the expectation is that should act like one. Not only that, he's an adult with a particular responsibility that makes this episode rather more appalling.

In any case, I believe this, if nothing else, demonstrates pretty convincingly that Sen. Brown does not have the temperament to run for higher office, unlike a Sen. Tarr or Charlie Baker.

---

by: Hoyapaul @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 13:23:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This guy is funny (6.00 / 1)

I wasn't aware of Senator Brown, but he's certainly entertaining.

Here's an excerpt from an interview he did with 'Republican Voices'

Emil Levitin: What is your message of encouragement and advice to other Republicans thinking of running for office in Massachusetts ?

Scott Brown: I would tell them to have a very thick skin and be prepared to be attacked whether it be through the media or through special interest groups.  ....So I would just say to make sure to be prepared to take some lumps but also prepare to celebrate for victory.  ...

Someone should have warned him about those mean teenage girls!

---

by: mojoman @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 13:07:32 PM CST

Somebody's gotta call this story what it is: not particularly important. (5.00 / 1)

Now don't get me wrong -- I am a solid gay progressive and I even worked on Angus' first campaign against then Rep. Brown.

But seriously -- do we think that high school kids can't take a couple of "F-bombs?" I don't see any point in Sen. Brown going in to a school as a reaction to mean-spirited postings and saying something like "awww shucks guys... I wish you hadn't said so many darn bad things about my family and my vote on gay marriage... but you did and that's simply not tolerable." ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZ...

Quite frankly, Brown probably gave those kids a real lesson in civics -- government isn't all "shucksy" and "oh darn." People swear, politicians are just regular people... now they know that.

Who cares... move on... I mean, would we be going on and on about this stuff if it was a Dem who dropped a swear or two to make a point? I doubt it.

---

by: Migraine @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 13:25:07 PM CST

Except... (5.00 / 1)

...one of the main justifications for opposing equal marriage is a need to protect children.  Brown behaved poorly in front of a bunch of kids and his hypocrisy should be noted and criticized.  He, his wife and his daughter have all chosen to live their lives in the public forum.  It's too bad he can't rise above the criticism that always comes with that choice but he should know better. 

 

---

by: anthony @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 15:13:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I am always fascinated by the argument that Repiblicans need to live up to a higher standard. (3.50 / 2)

Do Democrats/Liberals/PRogressives not care about families?  Are they immoral wastrels of taxpayer dollars?  Are they blase about the need to protect children?

Why is it only Republicans are hypocrites? Do you really think that much of us?

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 20:50:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not higher standard... (5.33 / 3)

...but their own standard.  I'm always amazed at how republcans expect others to live by their standards and then object when asked not to deviate from the standards they create.

---

by: anthony @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 00:50:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

What Should Be Scott Brown's Punishment? (0.00 / 0)

We can pretty much all agree that Scott Brown acted inappropriately.  So the question now is - what is an approriate punishment for him?

Resigning in disgrace is certainly an option.  Bart Simpson had to write on the chalkboard at the beginning of every episode.  The high school Scott Brown was speaking at has a student handbook that requires an "office detention" for "use of obscene or profane language" and "inappropriate social behavior" (page 25).  For those curious, here is the bill from Beacon Hill called An Act Promoting Safe Schools - it includes in the definition of "bullying" any "verbal expressions" that can cause "a hostile school environment".

I can't seem to create a poll in the comments, so just post your call.

What Should Scott Brown's Punishment Be?

1) Resign his Senate seat - he did curse out a bunch of high school kids after all
2) Contribute a month's salary to the King Philip Regional High School boosters
3) Write "I will not drop the F-bomb on school grounds or on the Senate floor anymore" 500 times
4) Serve an office detention, as per page 25 of the King Philip student handbook
5) Spend a night in a correctional facility for "bullying"
6) Attend an anger management seminar
7) Send a written apology to the school and to every student at the assembly who wasn't involved in the original Facebook.com posts for his inappropriate behavior

---

by: BrightonGuy @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 13:42:18 PM CST

What Should Scott Brown's Punishment Be? (0.00 / 0)

8. A public apology to the students would seem appropriate.

If not that, then maybe:

9. Light himself on fire and jump off of the Mystic River Bridge, preferably at night.

One or the other.

---

by: mojoman @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 14:15:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

NAH - TAKE A SEMINAR FROM BOSTON IMPROV (0.00 / 0)

Practice the one liners.  Learn to give it back without losing his cool, and practice the intense slow burns of controlled anger, not the quick fix of popping an F-bomb.  Really.

Deborah Sirotkin Butler
AmberPaw dot @aol.com

"Failure to plan is planning to fail."
Proverb

---

by: AmberPaw @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 17:05:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Obscenity is appropriate at times, even in the high school classroom (5.67 / 3)

I know Scott Brown's position on SSM.  I saw him on NECN with Charley.  I really don't like the guy. Also, intimidation = bad, but we only have the Globe account, we can't see the full presentation in context.

But why not say 'fuck' in high school? I am not advocating throwing 'fuck' around the classroom in casual or gratuitous forms.  When I was in high school, certain literature, especially certain pieces in the 20th century canon, contained 'fuck'. I read "Catcher in the Rye", a book in which the magic f-word appears, when I was a sophomore; I imagine many BMGers have had similar experiences in high school classes.

To me, the word 'nigger' is far more vile than any of the "seven dirty words", yet, when I was learning about slavery in 7th grade I saw the word in primary texts and heard the word while watching "Roots".  Deleting that word from my middle school learning experience would have dampened the impact and removed me further.  Using impact language in education helps move texts and other media from the voyeuristic side of the spectrum to the visceral.

Additionally, there are volumes of linguistic scholarship that argues convincingly that no word should be taboo from the English language at any time. (I don't have time to dig any of it up, but will post if I find any).  The crew at Language Log occasionally tackle the issue.

First, by making a word taboo, the word is given more power and becomes almost exalted in status.  That means that every time the word is used, it has the potential to stir up things to a far greater magnitude. Look at the following synonyms: bang, screw, plow, bone, shag, and so on. All four letter words that mean the same thing. But the one that begins with F is across the bar unacceptable; if Brown used any of the synonyms, there may not even be a story. 

Also, I think this may have came up in the new Boston 18+ event curfew thread, but if you treat teenagers with kid gloves, you are more apt to get child-like behavior, if you respect kids and treat them with a level of maturity, you are apt to see more mature behavior.  I mean, it's not like these kids don't hear these words from parents or use these words themselves.And suppose he censored him self by saying "f" instead of "fuck" (in other words, "Go F yourself").  The kids know what it means and are going to form that word in their heads, which has the same impact as verbalizing said obscenity.  This accomplishes nothing except from keep the word from being spoken out loud. BFD. 

Brown was using a direct quote. I'll agree for the sake of this argument that in the context of the whole, his actions were wrong.  However, even if calling the kids out was inappropriate, his use of `fuck' was appropriate because he was citing a direct quote. 

Brown makes a valid point when he says:

"A couple of people objected to the language, and I said, 'I object, too,'" Brown said. "It's offensive, in that I now have to justify why I repeated what kids said about me, as if I'm doing something inappropriate."

If an authority figure, especially a state legislator, uses such harsh language it will replicate far more effectively the impact those words concerning his daughter had on him than if that language was cleaned up and handled with kid gloves.  Sometimes, to be more precise with our communication, we need to use language that we typically would not use.  Brown's point, right or wrong, was communicated far more effectively with the inclusion of 'fuck'.

Let me get this straight: Democrats protest war, Republicans protest health care?

---

by: tblade @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 14:31:26 PM CST

Scott Brown.... (0.00 / 0)

.....immaturely reacting to criticism of himself and his family (I don't know how many kids he's got but he, his wife and his daugther all chose to be public people) is not comparable to profanity contained within great works of literature or educational texts.  I don't sear at work because whenever someone does it makes them look immature and crude and it accomplished nothing.  All Mr. Brown has accomplished to do is to invite more criticism. 

---

by: anthony @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 15:20:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Public people argument (5.00 / 1)

The more I think about it, the less I buy the "his wife and his daugther all chose to be public people" argument.

It would be OK to criticise them if you truly had a beef with their public life, for isntance "Gail Huff is a bad reporter". But if Brown's wife or daughter are being criticised simply for who their husband/father happen to be, it is sleezy. 

I have as of yet seen any evidence that Brown's daughter has done or said anything publically to support her father's positions or done anything to lend her local celebrity status to his political career.  If she does allow herself to be used for political game, then the rules change (Mary Cheney).  Untill then, there is no reason for anyone to pitch virulence at her because her dad's action as a legislator.

Let me get this straight: Democrats protest war, Republicans protest health care?

---

by: tblade @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 18:36:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I did not suggest... (0.00 / 0)

...that Sen. Brown's wife or daughter have taken a political stance but the simple fact is that once you decide to enter the public domain you are fair game.  I didn't invent the standard but it exists nonetheless.  If you don't want people to criticize you for no reason then don't participate in politics or news reporting or reality television.  They all had a choice and they all have to live by their choice.

---

by: anthony @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 00:56:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Fair enough (0.00 / 0)

But we should not penalize people (especially parents) for "over reacting" when someone is being criticized for an "off topic reason" (criticized for who her father is.)

I amnot saying Sen Brown's actions were justifyable, just the "if you can't stand the heat" argument doesn't always apply for people who choose the limelight.

Let me get this straight: Democrats protest war, Republicans protest health care?

---

by: tblade @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 01:40:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You're right.... (0.00 / 0)

..that it doesn't always apply, but we'll have to disagree as to this instance, because I think Sen. Brown's action were a classic example of over-reacting to one's own self created reality.

---

by: anthony @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 10:26:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I admire you defending the guy (6.00 / 1)

but I think that he's dead wrong.
I don't know all of the particulars, but I'm going with the understanding that someone posted nasty things online about Senator Brown and/or his family. Senator Brown then chose to repeat some of those nasty things in the presence of sophomore high school students, some of whom hadn't posted or said anything negative or otherwise about Senator Brown.

We all know that it's pretty easy to post things online and create a false impression of the authors identity. Whoever posted things about Senator Brown didn't look him in the eye and utter the words, they were posted online. It was foolish and unnecessary of him to accuse students by name if all he had were postings.

He could have made his points about civility & discourse without resorting to language that offended anyone. The guy is a lawyer, a Tufts grad, and an elected public official, so I would expect him to be smart enough to negotiate the situation.

I don't have a big problem with salty language, but common sense dictates that you don't throw it around casually, especially in front of children, unless you're prepared to be called out. 

Suppose someone had posted under the name 'Mary Smith', and stated that she thought Senator Brown was a "f*cking c*nt".
Suppose that Senator Brown didn't like being called a "f*cking c*nt" and so he decided to repeat that phrase and attribute it to 'Mary Smith', in front of a class of sophomores. If one of those students was named Mary Smith, and she had nothing to do with the postings, Senator Brown might have found himself picking his teeth up off of the floor.

It was just a dumb thing for him to do IMHO, and he could have used the opportunity to teach the students something and still make his point. I didn't think it was possible for him to be that foolish, but after reading his quotes defending his own actions, it looks like he screwed up.

---

by: mojoman @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 15:39:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Good point (0.00 / 0)

I am not really defending his actions on the whole.  I am just reserving criticism for the tactics untill I get more facts and a fuller picture of what actually happened. Judging by what I have seen of Brown on TV, I have no problem saying that in General, the guy comes across as acting like a jerk sometimes. (I don't know him enoguh to say he is a total jerk, but some of his actions are jerk-like actions). 

I do, however, think that there is no reason for criticising this particular use of "profanity". I can agree that he pobably should not have made the statement in the first place, regarless of the vocabulary; I will let others discuss that because I have not formed a complete opinion on the matter. 

My issue is criticising him based upon the perception that "fuck" is "wildly innappropriate" for the tender ears of high school students.  Again, I agree that his approach may be wildly inappropriate, and the context may be wildly innapropriate. I take issue with the idea that certain vocabulary in the common vernacular should be uniformly banned in high school. 

I cannot think of one single word (right now, anyway) that should be banned in a public high school. 

Let me get this straight: Democrats protest war, Republicans protest health care?

---

by: tblade @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 16:00:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Mojo - the fact that it was on a teacher's facebook page, for his students to post on, lessens the liklihood of the Wrong Mary Smith being involved. (4.00 / 1)

This was not a random public site, buth the site of the teacher.  God knows what's out there in random-land.

And NONE of the kerfluffle has been over the kids in question not actually doing it - just that Sen. Brown named them in class.

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 18:32:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Carefull, Peter (5.50 / 2)

The Globe article states, "The comments were posted on a page dedicated to a history teacher at the high school who supports gay rights and have since been removed."

I don't think the page in question was posted by the teacher. 

I know that in Facebook one can create "groups" and dedicate it to anything (eg Darfur, smoking pot in the town hall parking lot, a teacher, a movie star, oneself etc...) I could, if I wanted to, create a Peter Porcupine fanclub group with out your permission.

Let me get this straight: Democrats protest war, Republicans protest health care?

---

by: tblade @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 18:53:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Saturatin point (5.00 / 1)

Just how many PP fan clubs do you think the market could bear?  I'm quitting my job on Monday to manage my operation fulltime.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 19:14:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Cool! Do you think the server could handle the traffic? (0.00 / 0)

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 19:15:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hold on guys.... (5.50 / 2)

...first we would have to actually locate PP fans. D'oh!

Just kidding, Peter :p

Let me get this straight: Democrats protest war, Republicans protest health care?

---

by: tblade @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 23:01:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Won't someone please think of the children??? (5.00 / 2)

Hey, so he dropped a coupla f-bombs.  Punishable in high school, as jaywalking is punishable in Boston --  Just because a rule is on the books doesn't mean that it always makes sense to enforce it.

Keep in mind, Brown was lecturing about hate speech.  Whether it involved his family, or someone else, I'm glad he didn't soften it up by making it family-friendly.  Hate speech isn't family-friendly, it's destructive to family and community.  Cleaning it up makes it seem for acceptable, and less damaging.  Plus, he takes the power of that word away from its first users and shows the remarks for what they were -- cowardice.

I'm no fan of Brown, but silly garment-twisting doesn't impress me either (and am I the only one who thinks this discussion would have a different tone were it, say, Jarrett Barrios who did this?).  Between someone saying the "f-word" to teenagers and those scary lite brite ads, Boston is looking less like the cradle of the revolution, and more like...well, just a cradle.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 17:55:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Mark Twain (0.00 / 0)

wasn't a racist simply because he used the word nigger.  In the time and place he was writing, nigger wasn't offensive.  It was just what you called someone of African descent.  There was also a time that when you called someone a cripple it wasn't an insult, it was just an accurate description of their rather unfortunate state.

My point is that words can change their meaning, and so reading a primary source from the mid 19th century isn't comparable to reading a Facebook page in the 21st.  Fuck is not appropriate for a person of authority to say in front of children, period.  When it written on something in Catcher, as you may remember, Holden can't stand it.  He does everything he can to try and erase it.  Of course, he says it all the time, but that just shows what a troubled young man he really is.

somewhere over the rainbow

---

by: Kai @ Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 20:33:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Exactly!!!!! (0.00 / 0)

The problem with the majority of this discussion is that the words are being taken out of context.  According to the piece I read in the MetroWest Daily News, the context was the legislative process and how decent turns into hate speech.  In this context the use of the words and naming the students is not a big deal.  I really just don't get all the outrage over this story.

"The Liver is evil and must be punished" - W.C. Fields

---

by: JK @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 05:53:53 AM CST

[ Parent ]

David's advice (2.20 / 5)

If you can't take the heat, Senator, get the fuck out of the kitchen.  And you can quote me on that!

Quote you?  How about link to you?

Brown not only proved he can take the heat, he went into the kitchen looking for where it was coming from, and he answered it.  He didn't run away from the kitchen.  You have to give him credit for even going to a high school and talking about his unpopular position, rather than staying out of the kitchen like some people do when they don't like the heat.

I'd love to know the rest of what he said to the kids, is there any transcript or video?

More info at www.EggAndSperm.org

---

by: John Howard @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 15:05:37 PM CST

Great... (6.00 / 1)

....lets all congratulate an elected official for standing up to a bunch of teenagers by trading f-bombs!

I'd say the heat was a bit too much for Mr. Brown and he blew his top.  I'd be very surprised if anyone in that audience even remembers anything else he said that evening. 

And for the record, no one is avoiding the same sex conception heat.  They can't even find the kitchen because it exists only in your mind. 

---

by: anthony @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 15:28:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Directions to the kitchen (0.00 / 3)

In addition to the seven questions that David refuses to answer, here is an article that proves that it's not in my mind, and also shows why no one knows about it - it's being self-censored by the media.  And again, everyone here flees that kitchen.

And Brown does deserve credit for going there, and kudus for not treating kids like they're princesses.

More info at www.EggAndSperm.org

---

by: John Howard @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 16:00:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sorry... (5.00 / 1)

...but the conflation of marriage and genetic engineering/cloning is all in your mind.  I give Brown all the credit in the world for being willing to talk to high schoolers, I fault him for not understanding that he shouldn't act like one. 

---

by: anthony @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 16:13:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Answer the seven questions (0.00 / 1)

And you will see that it isn't "conflation", it is unavoidable logic.  OF course, you might not answer all seven "True", in which case it doesn't matter what it has to do with marriage, we've got some other discussions to have first that are even more important.

More info at www.EggAndSperm.org

---

by: John Howard @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 17:14:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This is about the F-bomb, not about genetic engineering (6.00 / 1)

Quit making every thread about your own tired issue.

---

by: stomv @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 17:22:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Answer the seven questions... (0.00 / 0)

and the truth shall be known!!

Really, they aren't as poignant and truth revealing as you have convinced yourself that they are.  Please, move on.

---

by: anthony @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 17:29:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What are the chances that I'll go there and find that you have answered them? (0.00 / 2)

About zero.  Because they are very truth revealing.  Answer them and we'll move the discussion over to there.

More info at www.EggAndSperm.org

---

by: John Howard @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 17:33:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

oh, well, if it's in print... (0.00 / 0)

...then it must be true.  yeah.  uhuh.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 16:24:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It might be true (0.00 / 1)

look, if it's not true, great!  Don't know why I should assume they're making it up, but OK, maybe GayCityNews and Dr. Richard Scott are lying, maybe all those people quoted in that article never said what they said.  Whether or not people are about to do same-sex conception is irrelevant, the point is that they shouldn't be allowed to, because it would be unethical.  And that we know to be true from scientific experiments and from what we know about gene imprinting for males and females.

More info at www.EggAndSperm.org

---

by: John Howard @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 17:12:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah, right. (5.00 / 3)

Let's see: 

Teacher X has a bunch of rowdy kids in the room who refuse to cooperate.  One or two of the kids call the teacher a "fucking asshole."  What should teacher X do?  Why, s/he should start returning the favor by calling the kids "fucking assholes" right back.  After all, their not "children," or "princesses."  Because that's what we do in society, right?  We return uncivil behavior with more uncivil behavior, especially in schools where we're supposed to be both MODELLING and TEACHING the behaviors we value in public discourse.

Unbelievable.  How anybody could defend an elected official for behaving like a child in front of a group of students is beyond belief. 

We do, apparently, get both the society and the government we deserve. 


 

---

by: lightiris @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 09:15:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

He didn't call them anything (0.00 / 0)

He read their words about him, showing them an example of hate speech they may have been in the habit of not counting as hate speech (I think that was his point).  As far as I am aware, he didn't call the students any names at all.

More info at www.EggAndSperm.org

---

by: John Howard @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 16:02:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The problem is not (5.00 / 2)

name calling, it's the modeling of positive behaviors.  Jesus, if you can't see that, there's no point in bothering to clarify the point. 

 

---

by: lightiris @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 16:28:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

He's not a model anymore (0.00 / 0)

Plus, I think it was positive behavior, showing the hate that is directed at him and his family.  He showed he can take the heat and he's gonna stay in the kitchen.  Some kids are just being prissy about it, thinking they can get him in trouble or something.

More info at www.EggAndSperm.org

---

by: John Howard @ Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 03:05:31 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Missed Opportunity (5.50 / 2)

It seems to me that he approached the issue entirely wrong.

First, he should have alerted school officials to the postings and told them he was planning to raise the topic during his speech. He should have brought the remarks up in the context of how tenuous the debate over gay marriage is. I understand he did this to some extent, but his naming of names and use of profanity was over the top.

Imagine if you were a sophomore in high school and an angry state senator called you out in front of your classmates. I'm not attempting to defend bringing Brown's family into this at all, let alone in a degrading way. But as others have said, he is an adult, they are children.

What is most revealing about this is that Brown failed to see a golden opportunity. He could have addressed the remarks and engaged the students in a discussion about what civilized debate sounds like. By his very example he could have shown that too often our public life is swamped in vitriol, when it should be about reasoned argument and reasonable consensus.

A bunch of high school kids could have gotten a lesson in civics and responsibility-- instead they got anger. If Brown is going to lead the GOP he needs to learn to be a leader, and  if this is a sign of how he'd lead, count me out.

---

by: DanielShays @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 15:43:53 PM CST

The Anti-Equality Crowd & Free Speech (5.00 / 2)

Using the 'f-word'is a punishable offense in high school. Using it in public is Dick Cheney crazy. Furthermore, you don't attack kids by name in a public forum, regardless of what they've done. That's common decency. Period.

If Sen. Brown had wanted to make an intelligent point about hate speech, as DanielShays says, he didn't need to quote obscenities. He might have acted instead like an adult and demonstrated what appropriate civil speech sounds like. That's what we do as high school teachers. We certainly don't stand up on stage and accuse them of their own (mis/mal)feasance in front of their peers.

What interests me most about this whole flap is that another representative of the anti-equality, against his better judgment, has stepped on the free speech rights of others. First was Larry Cirignano who (allegedly) pushed down Sarah Loy, at an event that didn't matter. Now Scott Brown, at best confusing hate speech with hateful speech, confronting inappropriately (as we say in school) kids by name with expletives.

Clearly, every who is against marriage equality isn't against free speech, but the absurdly intolerant behavior of Brown and Cirignano curiously parallels the intolerance of their political stance and it makes me wonder.

Mark

A rose by any other name is still a rose by another name.

---

by: Yellow Dog @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 16:39:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Opportunity taken (5.00 / 2)

I wonder how many of you actually have kids/teens or deal with them every day? I think this group needed this lesson.

This was an excellent method for him to use to make a number of good points.

The internet is not anonymous, and you should be held to account for your words.

Those kids attacked him and his family publicly, using a resource provided by the school.

Brown publicly pointed out what they had done... making them (figuratively) stand up and take responsibility for what they wrote.

If they were then embarrassed by the fact, then good. Thats a lesson in and of itself (maybe should added to the MCAS) that everyone should learn.

This is especially so in that this was just a short opening to start the discussion. Good, real-time examples involving the kids and their classmates are much more attention grabbing and memorable than some statistic.

And as to the guy's family, they are not in the "public forum" as someone is saying.

We have a hard enough time getting good people to run for office in our towns and cities. One of the larger impediments is the fact that if you choose to run then anonymous bloggers can and will write disgusting stories and falsehoods about you and your family.. and you have no recompense.

Brown taught a lesson in civics, a lesson in hate-speech, and put a few kids in their place who deserved it.

Personally, I would have collected copies of all the postings and made them available to parents as well.

Of course, the parents these days would not punish their children for being publicly inappropriate.. they would not acknowledge their own poor parenting.. they would go to the press and try to turn it all into a "blame the messenger" situation.

Dracut Forum a small town with a big future

---

by: Shawn A @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 04:48:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't think anybody... (5.00 / 2)

....here is suggesting that there was not a need to demonstrate to these kids the proper way to conduct oneself in the public forum, be it political or social or via the web.  I don't think anyone has a problem with teaching a lesson.  The problem is the way the lesson was taught.  Sen. Brown's actions defeated his intentions, emboldened those he was seeking to criticize and made him look pretty darn immature in the process.  An when you are an elected official and your wife is a television journalist and your daughter participates willingly in one of the most popular television shows that has ever been and then promotes herself in the local press after returning home your family lives squarely in the public forum.  They aren't the Kennedy or Bush family, but they have sought and achieved notoriety.  And I do respect his wanting to defend his daughter, but he screwed it up by overplaying and over-reacting.

---

by: anthony @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 10:37:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Let's see (0.00 / 0)

Senator reads words, included the dreaded F-word, a word that's so trite and overused it's embarrassing to see in writing--certainly a word that 100% of the students have heard and read. 

Worse, he reads the words back to students who wrote them.  How humiliating!  Hearing words you publicly wrote on a website that widely read!

Someone said he said them "angrily". 

Someone said...

What's today,  lame news story day ?

---

by: gary @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 16:42:59 PM CST

You are so..... (0.00 / 0)

.....far above and beyond it all that you could hardly care enough to comment.  But comment you did..... so you can step out from behing the 'been there, have the t-shirt' posturing. People who really couldn't care less don't go to the trouble of letting other people know they couldn't care less. 

There is no doubt this news is "lame" but not becuase it shouldn't be discussed, but rather, because elected officials shouldn't act like children.

 

---

by: anthony @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 16:58:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Especially children with computers who take it upon themselves to Alert the Media! (0.00 / 0)

Y'kow, there IS no transcript or YouTube of this whole thing -just the word 'angrily' thrown out there by the kids who were called out to start with.  I know what I first heard, in addition to saying it was a Catholic school, made it sound like he stormed in, swore at kids, and stormed out - the fact that he had been invited to talk about hate speech, and stayed for almost an hour, was a detail to be left behind until after that first negative impression had been made.

Parallel story - On Thursday, repeatedly, the radio said that people didn't like the Charley card system.  And now - live at South Station, angry commuters!  The reporter there, talking to people, said, well - the regular commuters DID like the Charley card, liked not losing money on a partially unused monthly pass, and the people having all the trouble were one day and occasional users who took too long to use the system.  There are T employees to help them out.  Back to you, Flo.  Yes, people hate the Charley Card!  I heard that repeated - without the backup- at least 4 times that day.

The Swearing Senator story is sort of the same.  Film at Eleven!  Well, maybe it wasn't that dramatic - but a TEACHER was upset, OK?

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 18:45:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm with you, Peter... (0.00 / 0)

...in the sense that we have not seen exactly what was written on the Facebook page and we do not have the complete context (tone and all) of Senator Brown's remarks.

I don't think this incedent can be properly analyzed without more facts and context.

Let me get this straight: Democrats protest war, Republicans protest health care?

---

by: tblade @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 18:57:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh, sure. (0.00 / 0)

Let's see how sanguine you'd be about the language if a teacher used "fuck" in front of your kids in a classroom while lecturing them on civil and appropriate behavior. 

 

---

by: lightiris @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 09:17:05 AM CST

[ Parent ]

When I was in 8th grade... (5.00 / 1)

During sex ed, the teacher was talking about alcohol and sex.  He said that if a man drinks alcohol before sex, it can stop him from being able to have it.  He followed this up with "It doesn't hurt if the girl has a couple in her though."  The word "fuck" is nothing.

Frankly, I'd be more angered at my kid for writing that stuff online than I would at the man who pointed it out. 

I get the feeling people are more upset at the Sen. than at the students...which would shift blame and somewhat vindicate their actions? 

---

by: JoeTS @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 11:00:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It's not the (6.00 / 1)

word itself that's the problem.  Is it really necessary to point that out?  Christ, I read the word--and worse--aloud in class more times in a year than you can imagine.  Context is everything.  Now having said that, the context in which Mr. Brown used the word is not only highly inappropriate, but his behavior in using it was unprofessional and childish. 

We expect childish and inappropriate behavior in students and teenagers.  Adults around them, especially those in authority, however, are responsible for modeling appropriate behaviors.  They should not be reinforcing the very behavior they are condemning. 

This isn't rocket science:  adults in positions of authority trying to teach a point to young people should do so in a respectful and adult manner even when those they are teaching are anything but.  Holy shit.  Some of the people posting on this site wouldn't last ten minutes in a public high school classroom these days.  No, make that five. 

 

---

by: lightiris @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 16:37:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I reaaaally wish (5.00 / 1)

that there was youtube or something of this.  I feel like the delivery could have made this be anywhere from a stern scolding and lesson learned to childish behavior. 

---

by: JoeTS @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 20:59:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

How sanguine (5.00 / 1)

Let's see how sanguine you'd be about the language if a teacher used "fuck" in front of your kids in a classroom while lecturing them on civil and appropriate behavior.

Indeed.  Or on a public bulletin board, where kids could read it.

There's a difference between swearing at someone and repeating the words or using the word in context, as you've done in the quoted text, or the Senator apparently did. 

And I say apparently, because no one here has indicated a personal knowledge of his tone or the context.  Rather, there's been much condemnation based on personal perception.

---

by: gary @ Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 07:48:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You guys are all making a similar mistake.... (0.00 / 0)

This is high school-aged people. I'm just a short two-years out of that joint, so I remember well.  These aren't children, schoolchildren, little kids or whatever.  When I was in 6th grade, kids in my class were nasty enough to make my English teacher cry.  Twice.

High school aged men and women know what they're doing when it comes to making other people feel bad about themselves...its a talent of that age-group.

Sen. Brown probably could have been more tactful, but I have full confidence that every word he uttered was 100% deserved.

---

by: JoeTS @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 21:44:18 PM CST

ID of juvenile criminals protected (0.00 / 0)

I find it a bit ironic that the ID of juveniles who have actually committed crimes must be kept confidential by law.  But when a juvenile does something legal yet, well, juvenile, their names can be sung from the stage of the Met.  Seems unfair that the innocent (in criminal terms) are handled so much more roughly in this way than bona fide criminals, doesn't it?  Just curious - how does the HS + 2 you feel about that?

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 22:29:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Finally! My Age provides me some insight... (0.00 / 0)

...into the bullshit that is my generation.

To answer your question, it makes me feel warm inside.  The single greatest problem with my generation and the people younger than me is the complete, total, and utter lack of discipline.  When I was in High School, people would get away with the worrrrst stuff, it was despicable.  I went a great high school, by the way.  When I was a freshman-junior, I wasn't in with a very good crowd.  My friends did a lot of drugs, had a lot of sex and were essentially terrible to their parents.  One of them, my buddy Adam, well, his mom got sick of it and sent him to live with his dad in Maine for a summer.  Adam is 6'4 .  Well, his dad is 6'7 and would oftentimes pick me up with one hand and go "Joeeeyy! My son's only good friend!" 

He came back clean, well behaved and filled with drive to succeed.  He is now in the army national guard, putting his considerable size and strength to good use.

The point of my story (love to make points through parables) is that the thing that made him change was the open recognition that he was effing up.  It was no secret; he didn't just disappear one day. There's a lack of accountability in my generation.  You older folks are so worried about people's self esteems that there's no more discipline through humiliation.  I don't mean that we should just start making kids cry in front of their class, but right now the system is failing.  I bet if we made being obese socially unacceptable and looked down upon again, there'd be less fat people. 

(BTW, don't yell at me with "how would you feel getting made fun of" blah blah because I was verbally tortured for most of my schooling)

---

by: JoeTS @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 00:42:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Believe me... (0.00 / 0)

...your generation did not invent rebellion.  And how exactly does a teenager getting the discipline he needs from a parent defend a grown man from acting like a 13 year old??

---

by: anthony @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 01:07:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't be so hard on yourself and your peers! (0.00 / 0)

First:

"My friends did a lot of drugs, had a lot of sex and were essentially terrible to their parents."

Of course they did! Joe, this is the story of every high school in America and dates back to time in memorium.  Don't you think your parents (or at least you parents' friends) weren't out rasising hell and abusing substnaces? Have you seen "Fast Times" or "The Breakfast Club"? Have you heard of "the sixties"? Do you think Woodstock was attended by "responsible" lawyers and doctors or wild high school and college aged young people? And "Leave it to Beaver" was not a documentary; perhaps "The Last Picture Show" is more representative of the 50s.

Kids were doing bad stuff, getting pregnant, dropping out of school and mouthing off to their parents in the 50s, 40s, 30s, etc, etc, etc...

Maybe in past generations the lack of meth, ecstasy, and oxy contin made it harder for high schoolers to get their hands on the illicit drugs, but I highly doubt they would have been more virtuous then kids today who do that stuff.

The idea of the past being "better times" is but a myth. Every "older" generation has looked back and said "these are the bozos who are going to lead us into the future?" And it will probably always be like that. 

Second:

"I bet if we made being obese socially unacceptable and looked down upon again, there'd be less fat people."

This is a very uninformed statement. You work on the assumption that all people choose to be obese based on lifestyle choices.  This is not the case for everyone. Genetic disorders, illness, nutritional education, prescription drugs, and economic disadvantages are all huge factors in one's weight. Sure, some people make horrible diet choices and live a sedentary lifestyle, but you can't tell just by looking at people what causes their obesity.  I would also add that certain weights for certain people are unhealthy, but on a different person who may be taking better care of themself, that weight is perfectly healthy. 

[A note on diet. Senator Barrios attempted to better school children's nutritional intake by banning fluff from school lunch.  But a lot of people, especially Republicans, were up in arms.  Is the paradox lost on these Republicans? They want to feed kids garbage for 12 years of school, setting a very poor nutritional example from which kids will learn (deeply ingrained), then at age 18 they expect them to all of a sudden manifest "personal responsibility" in diet choice and lead a healthy, obesiety-free life. Perhaps these people would learn "personal responsibility" better if they were taught better?]

Let me get this straight: Democrats protest war, Republicans protest health care?

---

by: tblade @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 01:27:53 AM CST

[ Parent ]

About the fat thing... (0.00 / 0)

The thing is, my mom has remarked to me on more than one occasion that there was never so many obese, and she doesn't simply mean overweight, but obese people when she was my age.  This can't be genetic anomaly, it got be lifestyle.  And I agree with you 10000% percent that the personal responsibility needs to be taught.  Do you know what caused the Republicans to be so against a better nutritional plan in the school? 

---

by: JoeTS @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 09:33:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm not saying I know the answer... (0.00 / 0)

I have no idea what caused the Republicans to be agaisnt a better meal plan in school, but I do know the way Barrios was deamonized for being frivolous didn't add anything to a legitimate discussion and reinforced in many the idea of teaching children nutrition is a waste of time.

========================

The obesity issue is not an either/or...

I wonder how many soda machines were in schools back in the day?  I not fast food and junk food has been around for ever, but I wonder to what degree this type of food penetrated the culture of young people?

Again, I don't know, but children's eating habits are taught at a young age. Parents who cook well and eat well tend to have adult children who make good choices.  Parents who have zero nutritional literacy tend to have adult children who eat poorly.

I live in Dorchester, the largest neighborhood in Boston with (I think) 134,000 residents. Many of do not have cars and I know of 5 legit grocery stores in town. There are some corner markets, but very few carry good produce and staple items tend to be more expensive than at larger chain stores.  On the other hand, there are pizza shops, McDonalds, pubs with fried food, etc cluttering every corner. 

I'm not saying it is impossible for certain people to eat better. I'm not making excuses for everyone.  I am saying the culture in which one grows up dictates his or her diet as an adult, and the issue of american obesity is far more complex then the simple bianary of personal responsibility. 

Let me get this straight: Democrats protest war, Republicans protest health care?

---

by: tblade @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 10:59:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

High school aged... (0.00 / 0)

children are not men and women, they are by defintion children, legally and socially.  Senator Brown is an adult.  Just because 15 and 16 year olds are used to being around immaturity does not condone an adult elected official from joining their ranks.

---

by: anthony @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 01:04:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I can't agree with that 100% (0.00 / 0)

At 15 and 16, the line gets blurred.  Sure, you're not a legal adult, but depending on the crime you commit, you could be.  Plus, at 16 you're allowed to cruise around in a 2-ton hunk of steel...I think that's giving someone who's a child a lot of responsibility.  These are by no means innocent schoolchildren.

---

by: JoeTS @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 09:37:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes... (0.00 / 0)

....kids at that age are on the brink of becoming young adults, and if we were actually discussing their behavior it would be a more difficult discussion for that reason.  But we aren't talking abut their behavior, we are talking about Sen. Brown's behavior which I don't think can be excused by implying that some in the audience can drive and be tried as an adult for a serious offense.  I think almost anyone would agree that on average 15 and 16 year olds lack a degree of social maturity and Sen. Brown taught them nothing by acting like one of them.

---

by: anthony @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 10:55:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

"I don't want to become a career politician" (5.00 / 2)

A little gem from March 2004 Tufts E-News

As a former model, Brown was voted sexiest man in America by Cosmopolitan magazine in 1982. He has maintained his law practice while a state representative and says he intends to serve no more than four terms in the seat if elected on Tuesday.  "I don't want to become a career politician," said Brown.

No kidding!  BTW, I wonder if he was plagued during his modeling years with the assumption by heterosexauls that as a model (and a looker! zowie!), he must be gay.  That could easily explain (not excuse) some of his anti-gay ways.  Still thinks he's gotta prove his het-ness by opposing equal protection of the laws for gays?  He wouldn't be the first person to act homophobically anti-everything-not-heterosexually as a defense mechanism.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 22:53:59 PM CST

F bombs away (5.50 / 4)

In a single move, Sen. Brown has created two new oxymorons:  an adult juvenile and a thin-skinned politician. 

As a King Philip parent, my opinion is that while the language used by the students was inappropriate, the barbed comments against Sen. Brown were justified.  Even since his daughter's appearance on American Idol, he has  exploited her "15 minutes of fame" and promoted her in every way: She has been pushed into signing her own photographs in venues such as  local car dealerships and malls, and shamelessly promoting her CD.  Last Halloween, trick and treaters that knocked on his door got a photo of Ayla and an order form for her CD.

Of course, self-involvement is nothing new for the Senator.  Visitors to his home have done a double-take seeing a nude picture of him - full-frontal nudity - displayed prominently.  (This is the Cosmo photo where his small hands conveniently cover his privates.) He may be proud of his Cosmo award, but many neighborhood kids were grossed out by the photo. 

 

---

by: Bruce7 @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 07:18:27 AM CST

Thanks! (0.00 / 0)

Appreciate your stopping by -- always good to get some local details that the rest of us aren't aware of.

That story about the Cosmo photo is scary ... can that possibly be true??  Who would have a photo like that in his house?

---

by: David @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 09:00:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

EBay will do him in... (0.00 / 0)

...some quick research as to what month in 1982 (and without any research, I THINK that was the year) he appeared in Cosmo...think monitor EBay and I'll bet it would take about a week before that Cosmo edition would appear for sale.

Personally I think his behavior at Silver Lake will be enough to question his "judgement" for higher office.  But that Cosmo picture will be the nail in the coffin.

---

by: FrankSkeffington @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 11:28:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

eBay (0.00 / 0)

You think it might have been April?

.08 Acres
.0000016% of Massachusetts Political Commentary

---

by: sco @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 22:50:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Scott Brown in his more liberal days (0.00 / 0)

It's a good thing you didn't make that bet.  It seems some enterprising youngsters have already got  the goods.

The text alone is priceless.  I was tempted to embed the pics themselves, but I wouldn't want to risk running Bluemassgroup afoul of any obscenity laws.

---

by: JS @ Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 15:34:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Gee - can I post my National Enquirer photo of Ted in his orange Speedo geting onto the boat? (0.00 / 0)

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 15:41:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I was hedging my bet... (0.00 / 0)

...I figured a day or two...but it was a nanosecond!

---

by: FrankSkeffington @ Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 17:39:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Wow. That's quite a testimony to Senator Brown's (0.00 / 0)

uhh, quirkiness. All kidding aside, I question the guys judgement for the way that he handled himself with high school sophomores.

The arguments that the kids were cowardly or mean for posting things online, or that people are coddling the kids because they don't like Sen. Browns act, are besides the point. He's a freakin' Senator and they are 15 year olds, and he still doesn't even know who said what about him. To me that's the bigger issue.
The points that you make about his self-involvement would help explain why he seems so totally clueless. I figured maybe he was just doing some sort of political hara-kiri, but I guess I'm giving him too much credit.

When he shows up at King Phillip to lecture on hand gun violence, you might want to keep the kids home.

---

by: mojoman @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 11:22:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Be Careful! (0.00 / 0)

Bruce, I'm worried that Senator Brown will now show up at your house to curse you out after he finds out you insulted him on the Internet!  Make sure to check the windows before opening the door!

.08 Acres
.0000016% of Massachusetts Political Commentary

---

by: sco @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 22:40:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"Small Hands"? C'mon Now! (0.00 / 0)

That's a cheap shot.  Brown has always been up front (not up frontal) about his pose in Cosmo and the resulting model/acting jobs that allowed a blue collar kid from the North Shore to pay for law school and launch a professional career. 

Personally, I think this is one of the best "local pol roils the waters" posts since, well, Barrios wanted to ban Fluff.  The subjects of hate speech, intolerance, and recognizing the line between personal attack and honest disagreement, are all lessons well worth sharing with high school students.  And bloggers.  However bluntly.

Let's have the debate, but please avoid cheap personal insults like that.  Small hands?  The greater threat to the dialogue is small minds.

---

by: amicus @ Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 11:29:44 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Amicus - do they realize the implication of saying that the...um...'physique'...makes the hands look small? >:~) (0.00 / 0)

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 15:43:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

not a big deal (4.00 / 1)

The extent to which we try to "protect" children from things they a) are already quite familiar with, b) won't harm them, and/or c) they need to learn about, frustrates me.  I think it's bad for society.

I'm not saying what Brown did was great.  Actually, I think it was inappropriate, and he should've known it.  But it's just not a big deal.  People are blowing it out of proportion because of a misguided "protect the children" obsession in our public life.

If Brown is one of those Republicans who actively spreads that obsession (Republicans do so disproportionately), then perhaps he deserves the reaction, through personal karma.  I don't know.  Either way, wish we didn't do it.

---

by: Cos @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 11:11:37 AM CST

Exactly. (0.00 / 0)

Slow news day?

---

by: Migraine @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 11:28:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Disagree.... (0.00 / 0)

completely with this assersion:

People are blowing it out of proportion because of a misguided "protect the children" obsession in our public life.

People are reacting the way they are because of the hypocrisy evident by a proponent of the "protect the children" philosophy selfishly acting like a child in front of children and then later defending his bad behavior by suggesting it was appropriate because people were critical of his family even though he uses his own family as a political prop. 

I don't think anyone thinks that a sophomore is damaged by the word f#%k.  That is really beside the point.

---

by: anthony @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 11:57:53 AM CST

[ Parent ]

that's not it (0.00 / 0)

Do you know if Brown himself is a proponent of the attitudes I'm describing?  He might be, but I don't know.  As I said, if he is, then he might deserve what he's getting, on grounds of karma.

However, either way, this is not the reason it's getting blow out of proportion, because Brown is not very well known, and the people writing about it don't seem to know if he promotes this attitude, or at least aren't mentioning it.  So whether he promotes it himself or not, the fact is that it is being blown out of proportion because of the prevalent attitude itself, regardless of whether he promotes it.

---

by: Cos @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 14:43:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Just because no-one... (0.00 / 0)

....has written Brown's biography in their post doesn't mean they don't know who he is or what he stands for.  Most people who contribute regularly here know who in the State House opposes gay marriage and why they do so (which speaks directly to his "protect the children" philosophy).  Moreover, your assertion that it is getting blown out of proportion is just that, your assertion.  I think it should get more attention than it is getting and I have no philosophical desire to protect kids from reality.  My issue is not with the kids hearing swears, it is with Brown being a hypocrite.  I don't think I'm alone on this.  Historically there is actually very litte "what about the children" posturing forwarded by BMG conributors.

---

by: anthony @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 15:17:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

evidence? (0.00 / 0)

You seem pretty angry about this but aren't providing any evidence to support your position.  The fact that Brown opposes gay marriage doesn't seem relevant to me.  I'm going by the evidence I have, which is what the people who are publicizing this actually wrote (including, for example, what David wrote in this post).  None of them give any indication that they're publicizing it because Senator Brown has previously made a big deal out of people swearing in front of teens in a way that makes him doing so hypocritical.  You're claiming that's the reason, but you don't even provide any evidence that Brown has done any such thing (he may have, I don't know), let alone that that is what is driving the publicity.  So I'll believe them about their own opinions, rather than your projection.

---

by: Cos @ Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 00:20:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You don't really need... (4.00 / 1)

....evidence to accuse someone of being a hypocrite, it is not a legal standard but an ethical one.  Scott Brown wants to keep some families from enjoying legal protection because he feels, in part, to allow it would be inappropriate for children and on the other hand has no problem acting inappropriately around children and later excusing his own behavior because he was protecting his own family.  In essence, other people don't get families becuase they are inappropriate but I get to be inappropriate because I have a family.  It is a smug double standard and yes, it makes me angry.  This whole thing started because of Sen. Brown's position on gay marriage.  It is plainly part of the whole controversy.  You don't need to produce evidence to prove that the sun is yellow.  Some things are self evident.

---

by: anthony @ Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 09:09:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

What Brown thinks or (0.00 / 0)

believes is irrelevant.  It's his behavior that's in question.  As we used to tell the felons over and over and over again when I taught for the DOC and as well tell teenagers now, it's your behavior that matters, not what you think, not what you believe, not what you really meant, not who provoked you, not who deserves it. 

Individual responsibility is the issue here and nothing else.  He is an elected official and he behaved inappropriately and unprofessionally in a setting that actually places some extra demands on a person's behavior. 

 

---

by: lightiris @ Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 08:16:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

thank you (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for confirming part of what I'm saying: People are upset about this because they believe Brown's actions were inherently bad, not because they think it's hypocritical.

I believe people are blowing it way out of proportion, and that while it was inappropriate, it wasn't serious.  But in this thread I've been trying to fend off angry claims that this is all about Brown's hypocrisy and if only he had different political views, people wouldn't take this so seriously.  Clearly you don't feel that way.

---

by: Cos @ Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 11:17:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

No (0.00 / 0)

People are blowing it out of proportion because of a misguided "protect the children" obsession in our public life.

Wow, way to completely mischaracterize the point to suit your own rhetorical purposes. 

I'm not aware of this obsession either, as one who deals with children on a daily basis.  Care to elaborate?  Methinks you are arguing the margins.

 

---

by: lightiris @ Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 08:13:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

so, explain (0.00 / 0)

Why is it so dreadfully awful and worthy of such attention?  What terrible harm has he done?

---

by: Cos @ Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 11:19:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

If you want to hear some really salty language from the pro-equality side (0.00 / 0)

Than surf over to www.knowthyneighbor.org

They make sport out of how many f-bombs they can drop

And if you get tired of that, you can always disagree with them and be called either a

Nazi
Bigot
Homophobe or
Klansman

---

by: Paul Jamieson @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 13:19:13 PM CST

This is not a general comparison... (0.00 / 0)

...of which side of the political divide has created the most profanity in multi-media or whether immaturity or intollerance exists on either side.  It is a discussion about how an elected official behaved while addressing a group of teenagers.  Had someone from knowthyneigbor.org delivered a speech to high school kids and behaved immaturely or inapropriately your point might be relevant.  But even then, the standard for an elected official would still be higher.

---

by: anthony @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 14:20:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Taking a step back (6.00 / 2)

What was the context in which this was done?

Based on what I have read, he was talking to the students about the legislative process.  The dropping of the f-bomb came when he was talking about hate speech and the negative tone of opposition to political positions.  He was quoting from posting from that kids at the school that were directed at him and his family solely due to his position on same sex marriage.  In this context I find this story to be a bit blown out of proportion.

A quote from Brown in the MetroWest Daily News.

"I said some issues are really divisive and they sometimes bring out vicious thought,"

As someone else has already pointed out, most of us read "Catcher in the Rye" in high school and that had the f-bomb in it.  The book is even listed as required reading for students at the high school where this took place.  Is dropping the f-bomb really that big of a deal?

As far as naming names, 1) the kids that were named signed their own names to their words in a public forum and 2) in context this may have been a good way to demonstrate how radical (don't know if that is really the right word, maybe negative) kids they know can get over political debate.

The history teacher who the web page was dedicated to, who is critical of Brown for his stance on same sex marriage and says he knew nothing of the page, even thinks this is going to far.

"This thing has gotten so blown out of proportion," said Ferreira.

"The Liver is evil and must be punished" - W.C. Fields

---

by: JK @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 17:13:08 PM CST